AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the Commissio ner of Income Tax(Appeals) (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), Delhi’s order dated 27.1 0.2025 passe d in DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250 /2025-26/1082011843(1), involving proceedings u/s 271DA o f the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act” .
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 34 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges at the outset during the co urse o f hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities action levying sectio n 271DA pe nalty of Rs. 6 lakhs in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 23.09.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Both the parties vehemently reiterate the ir respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty action. The Revenue more particularly submits that the assessee herein has been found to have e ntere d in this specified transactions in cash violating section 269ST of the Act which has made her liable for the impugne d penalty. There could be har dly any dispute between the parties that as against se ction 269SS or 269T involving cash loans etc, the impugned pe nalty is leviable in case when the concerned assessee enters in any transaction than the those specified herein above namely business transactions etc. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s section 153C satisfaction at page 135 of the paperbook that the amounts concerned are cash payments; at the best covered u/s 269S or 269T without prejudice to her stand all along, and not in the nature of business transactions attracting section 269ST or section 271DA of the Act. This clinching factual position as per the satisfaction note has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying the impugned section 271D penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs in the assessee’s hands. Deleted accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.